Pak blocks two key SAARC pacts

[karan.1970]

We also have a border with Bangladesh. Which is currently illegally occupied by India.

Karan what are you turning into...

@TL. What I wrote is the official and published position of GOI.

And every Pakistani member on this forum has continuously reminded the rest about the disputed nature of the whole of Kashmir region which includes the part under Pakistan's occupation.

And for India to say that it is not a neighbour of Afghanistan, is to give up its claim on the part of Kashmir under Pakistan's rule.

Dont understand why are you reacting to it as if it was a flame..


Didnt understand the Bangladesh comment though..

---------- Post added at 01:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:13 PM ----------

This post was the best post of 2010.
Hall of shame.

Already replied to..

 

[Aslan]

Karan some one else will be better suited to answer this but as far as my knowledge goes Gilgit Balistan AKA the northern areas have nothing to do with the dispute of Kashmir. If any thing they are and were more a part of what was known as NWFP or Sarhad and is now known as Khaiber-Pakhtunkhwa. So I dont understand that why is the GOI insisting on including GB into the Kashmir dispute. When they themselves dont want to consider IOK as a disputed territory.

Secondly the issue with SAARC is never going to be settled till Pakistan and India settle their own disputes. And as much as India likes to show the world and the Indians believe that it is Pakistan that hijacks the forum, as I have said before the issues with your country are no less.

 

[karan.1970]

Wat? lets ask the KASHMIRIS?
and by the way Baltistan is now unofficialy apart of Pakistan with its governor and political parties etc.even PPP took baltistan by storm..So stop ranting and crying like a crocodile.
Jo karna hai kar lay....Forget baltistan and think about indian occupied kashmir .coz in the end maybe even 100 odd years it will either be FREE OR A PART OF PAKISTANEVEN IF IT TAKE MORE YEARS AND MORE BLOOD.

Dude, either the whole of the region is disputed or none of it. Its Pakistan only that is not agreeable to converting LOC to IB. In which case, the Northern areas , Pakistan managed Kashmir also remain as a disputed area...

btw, didnt know that crocodiles could rant

And if writing something in big and bold letters could make it true, life would have been so easy

 

[karan.1970]

Karan some one else will be better suited to answer this but as far as my knowledge goes Gilgit Balistan AKA the northern areas have nothing to do with the dispute of Kashmir. If any thing they are and were more a part of what was known as NWFP or Sarhad and is now known as Khaiber-Pakhtunkhwa. So I dont understand that why is the GOI insisting on including GB into the Kashmir dispute. When they themselves dont want to consider IOK as a disputed territory.

Khalid.. They were also the part of the princely state of Kashmir at the time of independence and were parts of the areas run over by the Pakistani irregulars in 1947-48.. Also they have very recently been absorbed in the Pakistani republic as a province and had a different status before that.. The map below explains the whole tangle

Secondly the issue with SAARC is never going to be settled till Pakistan and India settle their own disputes. And as much as India likes to show the world and the Indians believe that it is Pakistan that hijacks the forum, as I have said before the issues with your country are no less.

whole heartedly agree to the bold part above

 

[Aslan]

@ karan.1970

I was never a fan of Musharafs policies, but what do you think of his proposal related to the partition of Kashmir into 2 with the Muslim Majority north going to Pakistan and the Predominantly Hindu into India where as the Vally as an independent entity. I believe that this is the best possible solution to the whole problem.

 

[JonAsad]

Well wots happening to Pakistans economy its nothing new it usually happenes to a country which is at War... War on terrorism... Our war expenditures are much more than what Uncle Sam is paying us in return. Its a universal fact that if some one requires some ones services it has to pay. The war on terror was not ours it was made to be ours.. b4 9/11 if you remeber we were at peace with Talibans.
See the history every countries economies tremble during war and after that it prospers.. Look at America and its economy now before attacking Afghanistan and Iraq..now its not even in a position to Attack Iran as its ecoomy will collapse. Look at Srilanka after defeating Tamil Tigers they are prospering..
India's economic growth is nothing if we look at it in a way that Pakistan is lagging behind because of the War and the inherited problems it brings to the people.

About Saarc India is having a taste of its own medicine.. you know what i am talking about.. if not go and read history of Saarc summits.
Cheers

 

[Crypto]

India Blocks SAARC

Prime Minister of Pakistan Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani arrived in Colombo, Sri Lanka to attend the 15th SAARC Summit. At the Bandranaike International Airport, he was warmly received by the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka and other high ranking officials.

The 16th Summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) will take place in Thimpu, Bhutan on April 28-29, this year. The SAARC was established when its Charter was adopted on December 8, 1985 and now has Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka as member nations.

It is also being speculated that Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh may take this opportunity to meet on the side to talk each other. The Indo-Pak composite talks were stalled following the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Even though the foreign secretaries of both the countries met on February 25, 2009 in New Delhi, the deliberations failed to yield any substantial result with India pressing hard on its undue demand for Islamabad to do more against terror networks.

The key to political stability in South Asia is to deal with the terrorism and internal conflicts. Regional cross-border cooperation is an essential part of any counterinsurgency strategy. Considerable potential exists for regional cooperation in reducing conflict, but this has been an underutilized strategy in combating terrorism in South Asia.

While all countries want to take this opportunity to iron out their regional differences, regional politics will overshadow common concerns like poverty alleviation, promoting economic cooperation and climate change.

Nihal Rodrigo, former Secretary General of SAARC, once said that in 1999-soon after the Indo-Pak nuclear explosions when the SAARC process came to a standstill-there took place around 360 meetings of various SAARC and South Asian related associations and forums. This clearly shows the desire among professionals to interact with one another and to be in close touch across borders.

But the achievements on other areas such as economic integration, is far from satisfactory. South Asia remains the least integrated region in the world despite South Asia Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAPTA) and South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA).

On the whole, SAARC has a long way to go for people of the region to appreciate the benefits of regional integration like visa free travel as in the EU. However, SAARC could not become a solid organization.

The neighbours always feared India’s domination as it accounted for 80 percent of land area, population and GDP of the region. The regional politics overwhelms to dilute economic issues in the SAARC agenda. The key political impediment is the Indo-Pakistan conflict. Since they are the largest members of SAARC, their problems have ramifications on the SAARC work program.

Owing to the largest size of its economy, India is trying to dominate and damage the indigenous industries of the other SAARC countries, the progress of various programs like SAFTA gets slowed down. It is because of the Indian secret strategic designs that the SAARC countries prefer to do business in EU or USA instead of India.

It is misfortune of South Asia that India has been endangering the regional peace by dreaming to become a superpower in wake of modern world trends like renunciation of war, peaceful settlement of disputes and economic integration. Over the years, India has not only been developing its conventional and nuclear arsenals, but is also obtaining latest weapons from the US, Russia and Israel. As to how India has blocked the progress of the SAARC in one or the other way could be judged from the fact that in May 1998, it detonated five nuclear explosions and compelled Pakistan to follow the suit. Thus New Delhi entangled Pakistan in a deadly arms race, which dependents upon the minimum nuclear deterrence.

As regards Indian belligerent approach, it has always tried to intimidate other neighbouring countries, especially Pakistan whom the former considers a continuous obstacle in the way of its designs. Under the pretext of Talibinisation, Indian secret agency, RAW has well-established its tentacles in Afghanistan, and has been running secret operations against Pakistan from its consulates located near the Pak-Afghan border.

It is due to Indian intransigence and ambition of political and economic hegemony that the overload of ‘soft issues’ in the agenda dominates the SAARC deliberations. Consequently, core issues like Kashmir and water including other ones such as trade and investment integration, get undermined during the deliberations.

Although the environment and the economy will feature prominently as it is the theme of the Summit—in addition, they may sign the agreement on South Asia Trade in Services (SATIS), yet the thorny dispute of Kashmir must not only be included in the agenda of this summit but also in every forthcoming summit.

India which considers the occupied Kashmir as integral part of the Indian union is using delaying tactics in order to avoid the solution of this old issue. Notably, India wants to keep her control on Kashmir which is located in the Indus River basin area which contributes to the flow of all the major rivers, entering Pakistan. By constructing dams in order to stop the flow of water, New Delhi is determined to bring about political, economic and social problems of grave nature in Pakistan. In this connection, directly or indirectly, New Delhi blocks the progress of the SAARC.

The postponement of the SAARC Summit in 1999 followed renewed tension between India and Pakistan. Similarly, both countries’ preferential imports from each other declined significantly from 1996 to 1998 following the nuclear tests in 1998 and the Kargil conflict in 1999.

Indian ambition to become a superpower of the region by bringing the other regional countries under its control and by behaving like an imperialist power has hampered even the development of SAAR towards economic integration like the EU.

It is due to Indian ‘hegemonistic’ designs that the slow progress of the SAPTA has seen a shift in focus towards bilateral trading agreements instead of multilateral ones between SAARC member countries.

Nevertheless, for economic and political reasons, SAARC has made relatively slow progress on expanding intraregional trade. In this context, political will and a change of mindset is crucial to resolve economic obstacles like the Kashmir dispute, if the SAARC region does not wish to fall further behind economically.

This is because of Indian obduracy in connection with Kashmir and its desire to become a superpower that it would be difficult for Islamabad and New Delhi to have even a separate bilateral Free Trade Arrangements (FTA)—particularly because of political tension initiated by India in the aftermath of Mumbai carnage last year, which provided India a pretext to further deteriorate its ties with Pakistan. In this regard, New Delhi left no stone unturned to isolate Islamabad diplomatically through a series of false allegations, while non-state actors were responsible for that tragedy, and there was no official involvement of Pakistan.

If India abandons its intransigence to dominate the other neighbouring countries and pays attention to the settlement of Kahsmir dispute, a regional trade arrangement such as the SAFTA administered under the SAARC would enable the member countries to obtain production inputs from each other at lower costs. The savings on logistics due to shorter distances and storage times would result in huge savings for South Asian manufacturers and consumers. For example, for Pakistan steel producers it would be more economical to import iron ore from India instead of Australia, Brazil or Canada. India on the other hand could procure scrap iron from Pakistan instead of Korea at higher costs.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations.


India which considers the occupied Kashmir as integral part of the Indian union is using delaying tactics in order to avoid the solution of this old issue.

India Blocks the Progress of SAARC

 

[Omar1984]

SAARC is pretty much a failure mainly because of Pakistan-India rivalry. I know some South Asian countries like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka would like SAARC to be a success, but I dont see that happening unless Pakistan and India resolve their issues.


Pakistanis would like to be connected to Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka but our security is more important and india is really the last country on earth that we Pakistanis can trust.


Pakistan is also part of other regional organizations like ECO, OIC, and G20 developing nations.

Of all the organizations Pakistan is part of, ECO is working the best mainly because there's trust between ECO member states. Mutual interest and mutual benefit.

With Pakistan and india theres no mutual interest at all, only conflicts and mistrust.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^^we do have a border with Afghanistan. Though the area currently is under illegal occupation by Pakistan...

Don't troll please and hijack the thread. You know exactly what kind of response that will get.

The simplest rejoinder here is that it is Pakistani territory under illegal occupation of India.

Move on and avoid this next time please.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

@TL. What I wrote is the official and published position of GOI.

Going by the official statements of your leadership from Nehru onwards (IG might be an exception), 'redrawing of borders' has been ruled out.

So while it might be an Indian position from an academic POV, it is obviously not considered a feasible position by the GoI itself. You know this, and therefore your post was a flame.

And every Pakistani member on this forum has continuously reminded the rest about the disputed nature of the whole of Kashmir region which includes the part under Pakistan's occupation.

Yes, that remains the official and unofficial view of the GoP and most Pakistanis. While the GoP has shown willingness to compromise, it has stated clearly that compromise would have to occur on both sides, and the status quo Indian position of LoC = IB is not acceptable.

And for India to say that it is not a neighbour of Afghanistan, is to give up its claim on the part of Kashmir under Pakistan's rule.

Your leadership has already done that through 'no redrawing of borders'.

Dont understand why are you reacting to it as if it was a flame..

Because it was, as explained above.

Please refrain from hijacking the threads next time.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan has an FTA with China and is in the process of FTA's with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. We should stick to that and focus on a future economic bloc to the West of us comprising Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and possibly the CAR's.

The only advantage of SAARC is the Indian market, and most Pakistani business commentators and economists argue that India has shown little willingness to remove non-tarrif barriers on imports from Pakistan. With those barriers in place access to the Indian market will be limited in any case, so there is little advantage for Pakistan here.

Most of the products we export to India have markets elsewhere as well.

 

[Dr.Evil]

Pakistan has an FTA with China and is in the process of FTA's with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. We should stick to that and focus on a future economic bloc to the West of us comprising Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and possibly the CAR's.

The only advantage of SAARC is the Indian market, and most Pakistani business commentators and economists argue that India has shown little willingness to remove non-tarrif barriers on imports from Pakistan. With those barriers in place access to the Indian market will be limited in any case, so there is little advantage for Pakistan here.

Most of the products we export to India have markets elsewhere as well.

You want India to remove Non-tariff barriers but do not talk about Pakistan giving MFN status to India.

Let pakistan give MFN status then we can talk about non-tariff barriers.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You want India to remove Non-tariff barriers but do not talk about Pakistan giving MFN status to India.

Let pakistan give MFN status then we can talk about non-tariff barriers.

Your comment is a distortion of my post.

I would like you to show me where I argued for one sided movement on trade?

My point is that SAARC or not, MFN or not, India maintains non-tarrif barriers on imports from other nations, and unless she shows a willingness to change on that count, the advantage of 'access to her market, for most developing countries at least, is limited.

Hence my point that SAARC holds little in the way of benefits for Pakistan.

 

[deckingraj]

Self Delete

 

[deckingraj]

Going by the official statements of your leadership from Nehru onwards (IG might be an exception), 'redrawing of borders' has been ruled out.

So while it might be an Indian position from an academic POV, it is obviously not considered a feasible position by the GoI itself. You know this, and therefore your post was a flame.

Yes, that remains the official and unofficial view of the GoP and most Pakistanis. While the GoP has shown willingness to compromise, it has stated clearly that compromise would have to occur on both sides, and the status quo Indian position of LoC = IB is not acceptable.


Your leadership has already done that through 'no redrawing of borders'.


Because it was, as explained above.

Please refrain from hijacking the threads next time.

IMO that is a proposed solution...Unless and until agreed nothing changed as far as claim goes...had that been the case we would have re-drawn Maps where we show whole of J&K including the area in question.....

So yes i honestly don't think that official position have changed apart from proposing solutions...for example Musharraf also proposed a solution which is converting LOC to soft border however it did not fructify due to various reasons....That was also your official stand at that time....IN short unless and until a solution is agreed upon by both parties the claim on whole of the region is valid and thus i do not see any flame bait in saying so...


P.S : This is my second off topic comment on this thread...so i will refrain from adding more to it unless you have some questions for me...